BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:Let's say that the Super Middleweight division would have been round since the 1880s and that would have been a major weight class the whole time? Who would have been the best at that weight?

Fitzsimmons, McCoy, Greb, LaMotta, Charles and Marshall all came to mind quickly.
Really, Robinson probably would have been great against anyone at 168 even though he would be smaller. Dick Tiger probably would have great at this weight as well.
Not sure about guys like Monzon or Hagler.

Anyway, just wanted to know what you guys think.

orbtastic wrote:I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

orbtastic wrote:I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

I wasn't saying he couldn't make it, just doubtful that he would campaign there. He didn't struggle to make 175, but he was coming in at his optimum weight. He also had fights over 175 before winning the title.

If not for tragedy, I think McClellan could have been better at 68. Probably a more natural weight for him.

mugabi wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

you're right he would have made 168 easily for a superfight without losing strength. Spinks was one of the first guys who employed a nutritionist in Mackie Shilstone. Mackie would have enabled him to come in 100% at 168 for a showdown with Hagler.

orbtastic wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

I wasn't saying he couldn't make it, just doubtful that he would campaign there. He didn't struggle to make 175, but he was coming in at his optimum weight. He also had fights over 175 before winning the title.

If not for tragedy, I think McClellan could have been better at 68. Probably a more natural weight for him.

Yeah, I think the question with spinks is more - why would he bother? I think the only reason would be to make a potential superfight with Hagler doable, given that Marvin himself said to Hearns after their fight [when asked if he would move up to 175 and let him have a chance of winning a title at 160] - You fight at 175, I'm not.

McClellan was an odd one, he was clearly drying himself silly making 160, coming in at over 180 on fight night and was a natural to take advantage of the extra 8lbs yet he mucked up his weight badly for his sole fight there.

Counter-puncher wrote:Little, Lyles, Tate, i get them all mixed up. which one fought Virgil Hill a couple times?

BarryWashington wrote:

orbtastic wrote:I'm not saying he was flabby, just that it was only towards the end of his career at 175 that he actually had much difficulty making 175. He was a few lbs under for nearly all his fights so not totally impossible to make 168.

Anyway, more on his weight making here at this old article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

"Bull——," said Angelo Dundee, who has trained 10 world champions, including Muhammad Ali and Pinklon Thomas, the current WBC heavyweight king. "This is a one-shot deal. He licked the guy because he was ripe for pluckin'. I had a fighter, Ruben Castillo, mess around with a nutritionist. All it did was get him stopped by Juan LaPorte. But his manager lost 20 pounds. Nutrition sucks. Wind sprints suck too. And if I catch a fighter of mine near a weight room, he better be able to take a baseball bat to the head. If Spinks will fight Pinklon, I'll buy him all the fruits and wheat he can eat."

Gil Clancy, now a CBS boxing commentator, trained fighters for 30 years. His best was Emile Griffith, who won world championships as a welterweight and a middleweight. "I don't think Spinks revolutionized anything," said Clancy. "You know how they rate performances for football teams? The offense gets a B; the defense gets a C minus. Well, Spinks was a C fighter who beat a D fighter. He won because the other guy was worse. Holmes was so bad, and Michael was wandering around in there like a giraffe. All that stuff might be good ideas, but not off that performance."

You can bet, though, that a lot of fighters will be studying Michael Spinks's novel training methods. And maybe try to beat his 880 time.

I love the ignorance by these two "legends" (I've bolded & under-lined the intelligent comments).